WEBVTT - How Elon Musk May Change Twitter 0:00:03.080 --> 0:00:08.280 You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:13.360 Elon Mosk is close to acquiring Twitter. Many are wondering, 0:00:13.520 --> 0:00:17.800 and some are concerned about what his absolutist view of 0:00:17.840 --> 0:00:21.400 the First Amendment will mean for the social media platform. 0:00:21.600 --> 0:00:25.120 Most described his outlook during a Ted interview this month. 0:00:25.320 --> 0:00:28.400 We want to be just very reluctant to delete things 0:00:29.240 --> 0:00:33.080 and have just just be very cautious with with with 0:00:33.440 --> 0:00:37.240 permanent bands. Uh, you know, timeouts I think are better 0:00:37.400 --> 0:00:40.600 or my guest his First Amendment law expert Eugene Follick, 0:00:40.680 --> 0:00:43.479 a professor at u c l A Law School. Some 0:00:43.600 --> 0:00:48.519 people might confuse First Amendment rights with speech on social 0:00:48.520 --> 0:00:53.080 media platforms like Twitter. Can you explain free speech in 0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:57.520 the context of social media sites. Sure, we have this 0:00:57.600 --> 0:01:02.080 tendency to use First Amendment and be speech interchangeably, but well, 0:01:02.080 --> 0:01:05.160 they're related, they're different. The First Amendment is a constraint 0:01:05.200 --> 0:01:07.840 on the government. Remember the first word of the First 0:01:07.800 --> 0:01:11.200 Amment is Congress. Congress shall make no law. That's been 0:01:11.240 --> 0:01:14.880 applied through the Fourteenth Amendment to states. The Fourteenth Amend 0:01:14.920 --> 0:01:18.680 instructs with no state shall and also to local governments 0:01:18.720 --> 0:01:22.000 and the like, which are agencies of state. But basically 0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:25.200 only the government is bound by the First Amendment. Only 0:01:25.240 --> 0:01:28.440 the government can violate the First Amendment. So, for example, 0:01:28.760 --> 0:01:31.840 if your employer fires you for your speech, or for 0:01:31.920 --> 0:01:34.680 your political activity, or even for your vote, that's not 0:01:34.720 --> 0:01:38.720 a First Amendment violation. Likewise, if let's say a private 0:01:38.800 --> 0:01:42.800 university expels a student because of the student's speech, that's 0:01:42.840 --> 0:01:46.480 not a First Amendment violation. Freedom of speech is a 0:01:46.560 --> 0:01:51.120 broader concept potentially, so you might say, for example, that universities, 0:01:51.200 --> 0:01:56.440 especially secular universities that describe themselves as devoted to free inquiry, 0:01:56.680 --> 0:02:00.360 should comply with free speech principles. Maybe not every maybe 0:02:00.360 --> 0:02:03.000 not in the classroom where the professor gets to decide 0:02:03.320 --> 0:02:06.400 whom to call on and what issues to discuss, but 0:02:06.880 --> 0:02:10.760 for example, that the university private university shouldn't expel a 0:02:10.840 --> 0:02:13.760 student because of a speech. In fact, in California, there's 0:02:13.800 --> 0:02:18.240 a state statute that bans private universities except religious ones, 0:02:18.560 --> 0:02:21.720 from imposing speech codes on their students. I think that 0:02:21.800 --> 0:02:24.240 statute is a free speech protection, even though it's not 0:02:24.320 --> 0:02:27.799 a First Amendment protection. Likewise, you might say, maybe private 0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:32.400 employers shouldn't be able to fire their employees for their speech, 0:02:32.800 --> 0:02:37.600 especially maybe off the job speech, especially maybe speech about politics. Again, 0:02:37.639 --> 0:02:40.880 in my own California, private employers are not allowed to 0:02:40.960 --> 0:02:44.760 fire employees based on the employees political activity, which is 0:02:44.760 --> 0:02:48.440 defined very broadly to cover advocacy not just of candidates, 0:02:48.440 --> 0:02:51.840 but also of ideological causes. Quite a few other states 0:02:51.919 --> 0:02:55.639 also protect private employees against employers. That way, you might 0:02:55.680 --> 0:02:59.519 say that's a free speech protection. Likewise, if you think 0:02:59.560 --> 0:03:03.120 back historically to say the Hollywood Blacklist of the nineteen fifties, 0:03:03.200 --> 0:03:06.919 where people who were viewed as having been communists, to 0:03:06.960 --> 0:03:10.680 have been in affiliated with communist related organizations were blacklisted 0:03:10.720 --> 0:03:13.440 from jobs. You know that wasn't the First Amendment violation, 0:03:13.480 --> 0:03:15.080 but you might have said that that was bad for 0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:17.639 the freedom of speech and maybe a violation of free 0:03:17.639 --> 0:03:22.200 speech principles. So likewise, people talk about free speech on 0:03:22.520 --> 0:03:25.800 social media platform social media platforms or not. The government 0:03:26.080 --> 0:03:28.720 they don't violate the First Amendment if they banned people 0:03:28.720 --> 0:03:31.799 based on their speech, but you might argue that they 0:03:31.840 --> 0:03:35.200 ought to respect free speech because that's what our American 0:03:35.240 --> 0:03:39.120 democracy requires. So I think it's an important question how 0:03:39.240 --> 0:03:41.600 much and what kinds of free speech ought to be 0:03:41.640 --> 0:03:45.240 allowed whether the law should require such protections or whether 0:03:45.240 --> 0:03:46.720 it just ought to be allowed as a matter of 0:03:46.720 --> 0:03:50.800 the platform decision on these privately owned platforms, so must. 0:03:51.080 --> 0:03:54.280 In trying to explain his position on freedom of speech, 0:03:54.320 --> 0:03:58.360 he tweeted, quote, I simply mean that which matches the law? 0:03:58.920 --> 0:04:03.000 Is he showing tay in thinking that it's a simple 0:04:03.080 --> 0:04:06.960 concept like that? Well, I think you said, He tweeted that, Well, 0:04:07.480 --> 0:04:12.160 you can't capture even First Amendment rules in two characters 0:04:12.280 --> 0:04:16.600 or less, and you certainly can't capture the possible differences 0:04:16.720 --> 0:04:20.039 between free speech and First Amendment rules in Twitter day 0:04:20.120 --> 0:04:23.120 characters or less. Just to give an example, I think 0:04:23.279 --> 0:04:26.839 it's necessary for any platform to do something about spam. 0:04:26.920 --> 0:04:29.080 And there may be certain kinds of things which are 0:04:29.200 --> 0:04:31.400 protected by the First amend and certain kinds of mass 0:04:31.440 --> 0:04:34.240 mailings and mass posts that a platform might say, you know, 0:04:34.320 --> 0:04:37.640 they just degrade too much the user's ability to see 0:04:38.200 --> 0:04:41.080 real material that they want to see. That therefore, we 0:04:41.160 --> 0:04:44.280 need to block spam, even if spam is not illegal, 0:04:44.400 --> 0:04:47.400 or at least even kinds of spams that are not illegal. Likewise, 0:04:47.400 --> 0:04:50.320 you could imagine a platform Twitter is not one of them. 0:04:50.440 --> 0:04:53.920 Twitter actually allows pornography at least of certain kinds. But 0:04:54.000 --> 0:04:55.880 you can imagine a platform saying, you know, we're not 0:04:55.920 --> 0:04:59.280 going to allow pornography because there's too much of a 0:04:59.360 --> 0:05:03.080 risk of people incidentally stumble across it, and therefore we're 0:05:03.320 --> 0:05:05.760 just going to ban it. Likewise, Twitter, as I understand it, 0:05:05.800 --> 0:05:09.800 that allows pornography basically requires it to be labeled and 0:05:09.960 --> 0:05:13.640 kind of gives people warnings before showing it. Again, that's 0:05:13.680 --> 0:05:16.240 not a legal requirement. That's just Twitter's decisions. So there 0:05:16.240 --> 0:05:19.880 are possible differences. This having been said, you know, if 0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:23.520 you want to kind of take a first cut, admittedly 0:05:23.560 --> 0:05:27.400 oversimplified view, you might say, yes, our view should be 0:05:27.480 --> 0:05:31.320 the Twitter should generally speaking protect free speech at least 0:05:31.360 --> 0:05:33.839 so long as it's not illegal speech. So, no, we 0:05:33.880 --> 0:05:38.080 won't host child pornography. No, we won't host things that 0:05:38.120 --> 0:05:42.359 are clearly conspiracy to commit crimes or kind of accounts 0:05:42.400 --> 0:05:45.839 that are being used for criminal conspiracy. Let's say we 0:05:45.920 --> 0:05:49.760 won't host copyright infringement because that's illegal. But pretty much 0:05:49.839 --> 0:05:53.200 all other things, generally speaking, we're going to host. Maybe 0:05:53.200 --> 0:05:55.520 there'll be a few exceptions, but they really should be 0:05:55.640 --> 0:05:58.880 very narrow exceptions. It's a plausible way of thinking about these. 0:05:59.120 --> 0:06:03.760 Musk is a self described free speech absolutist, and in 0:06:03.839 --> 0:06:07.080 an interview at the TED Conference a couple of weeks ago, 0:06:07.640 --> 0:06:10.200 he said, if in doubt, if it's a gray area, 0:06:10.360 --> 0:06:13.440 let the tweet exist. If there's a lot of controversy, 0:06:13.880 --> 0:06:16.719 you wouldn't necessarily want to promote that speech. But I'm 0:06:16.800 --> 0:06:21.359 very reluctant to delete things and cautious with permanent fans. 0:06:21.400 --> 0:06:25.240 Some civil rights advocates are saying that that kind of 0:06:25.320 --> 0:06:33.359 uh minimally moderated Twitter can pose dangers or can harm women, minorities, 0:06:33.400 --> 0:06:37.240 and anyone out of favor with the establishment. What's your 0:06:37.279 --> 0:06:41.000 take on whether that kind of a minimally moderated Twitter 0:06:41.560 --> 0:06:45.920 poses any dangers. Well, of course, free speech poses dangerous 0:06:45.960 --> 0:06:49.599 Free speech is always posts. That's one reason why governments do, 0:06:49.720 --> 0:06:52.800 indeed try to restrict. And there's nothing special about those 0:06:52.880 --> 0:06:55.520 dangerous for the women, or as the minorities, or as 0:06:55.520 --> 0:06:58.040 to others. Just to give an example, there's been a 0:06:58.080 --> 0:07:01.279 lot of attacks on police officers recently, and some of 0:07:01.320 --> 0:07:04.480 them seem to be prompted by kind of very harsh 0:07:04.520 --> 0:07:08.640 criticism and kind of dehumanizing criticisms of police officers. And 0:07:08.800 --> 0:07:14.160 that's something that is a downside of speech. Likewise, for example, 0:07:14.280 --> 0:07:19.480 jahaddest kind of pro terrorists extremism is potentially harmful. Actually 0:07:19.520 --> 0:07:22.480 it's especially harmful to Muslims. Muslims are the main victims 0:07:22.560 --> 0:07:25.760 of extremist Islam, but it's also potentially harmful to others. 0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:30.280 Of course, speech is potentially harmful, But generally speaking, when 0:07:30.280 --> 0:07:33.040 it comes to the First Amendment, we take the view 0:07:33.640 --> 0:07:37.000 that on balance, it's better for everyone, and historically this 0:07:37.040 --> 0:07:41.240 has been especially important for various out of favor minority 0:07:41.280 --> 0:07:45.880 groups that speech be protected, because when speech is restricted, 0:07:46.480 --> 0:07:49.560 that keeps people from being able to argue about what 0:07:49.680 --> 0:07:53.200 they think are genuine wrongs and to advocate for for change, 0:07:53.560 --> 0:07:56.360 And that giving the government power to suppress speech of 0:07:56.400 --> 0:08:00.240 the government thinks is harmful will also suppress lot of 0:08:00.240 --> 0:08:03.480 speech that's valuable. So one could argue it's not necessarily 0:08:03.520 --> 0:08:06.520 obviously correct, but one could argue that the same thing 0:08:06.840 --> 0:08:10.880 applies not just to the government but immensely powerful platform 0:08:11.000 --> 0:08:15.680 operators like Facebook, Twitter and the like, that perhaps, on balance, 0:08:16.000 --> 0:08:18.520 just as it's good to deny the government the power 0:08:18.600 --> 0:08:21.160 to say we're not going to allow this kind of 0:08:21.160 --> 0:08:24.360 speech because it's harmful, Generally speaking, it's also good for 0:08:24.480 --> 0:08:26.960 these platforms to deny themselves this power to say, look, 0:08:27.280 --> 0:08:29.840 we we don't trust ourselves to make decisions about which 0:08:29.880 --> 0:08:32.760 speech is so harmful that should be prohibited, perhaps except 0:08:32.800 --> 0:08:36.120 for a really extraordinary things like, for example, child pornography 0:08:36.559 --> 0:08:38.400 or the life. So it seems to be a perfectly 0:08:38.400 --> 0:08:41.200 plausible position. Now, of course, you could argue that, no, 0:08:41.400 --> 0:08:44.320 the government ought to be banning more speech. The government 0:08:44.320 --> 0:08:46.839 ought to ban some people say, oh, the band racist speech, 0:08:46.920 --> 0:08:50.000 or ought to ban anti government speech or anti police speech, 0:08:50.080 --> 0:08:52.120 or whatever else. Lots of people have argued this in 0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:54.280 the past. Or you could say, no, no, the government 0:08:54.320 --> 0:08:56.679 shouldn't ban it. But instead of the government banning it, 0:08:57.000 --> 0:08:59.800 we should make sure that all of these influential platforms 0:08:59.840 --> 0:09:03.280 do what the government can't, which has suppressed speech that 0:09:03.320 --> 0:09:06.559 we think is harmful in various ways. You could argue that, 0:09:06.720 --> 0:09:09.160 But again, I think it's at least a plausible position 0:09:09.240 --> 0:09:12.760 to say that just as we don't trust the government 0:09:12.760 --> 0:09:15.240 to make these decisions, we shouldn't trust Mark Zuckerberg to 0:09:15.280 --> 0:09:18.520 make these decisions, or even Elon Musk to make these decisions. 0:09:18.559 --> 0:09:21.040 On a case by case basis, that maybe it's better 0:09:21.080 --> 0:09:23.920 for you on Musk to say, look, you know, I 0:09:23.960 --> 0:09:27.000 don't want to be the sensor dictating what is too 0:09:27.040 --> 0:09:29.720 harmful to be allowed and what is not, and then again, 0:09:29.760 --> 0:09:33.319 accepting extraordinary circumstances, I'm going to allow everything to be 0:09:33.840 --> 0:09:36.640 to be present. So I think it's a perfectly plausible position. 0:09:36.679 --> 0:09:38.960 It's not the only plausible position, but it seems to 0:09:39.000 --> 0:09:41.880 me one that makes a good deal of sense in 0:09:42.040 --> 0:09:45.400 light of the general assumptions that the courts and others 0:09:45.520 --> 0:09:48.679 have long held with regard to free speech broadly. So, 0:09:48.840 --> 0:09:52.800 the former chair of the FEC, Tom Wheeler, said that 0:09:53.240 --> 0:09:56.280 Musk is taking actions that highlight the need for the 0:09:56.360 --> 0:10:01.359 creation of a new regulator that would oversee the technology industry. 0:10:01.480 --> 0:10:04.560 So for Congress to pass legislation, you think that's a 0:10:04.559 --> 0:10:06.960 good idea or a bad idea, Well, it depends on 0:10:06.960 --> 0:10:10.120 what legislation, right. I mean. I'll give an example. Let's 0:10:10.120 --> 0:10:13.240 say somebody says, you know, yes, we think that it's 0:10:13.600 --> 0:10:17.000 bad to have statements that tend to encourage the killing 0:10:17.000 --> 0:10:19.760 of police officers, so there are to be regulation that 0:10:19.800 --> 0:10:23.120 prohibits that. Or we think it's bad to have statements 0:10:23.200 --> 0:10:26.880 that say insulting things about particular racial groups or particular 0:10:26.920 --> 0:10:30.520 religious groups. Well, that regulation would violate the First Amendment. 0:10:30.559 --> 0:10:33.000 We're not now in the category of free speech ethics, 0:10:33.440 --> 0:10:35.840 in the field of actual First Amendment law, and we 0:10:35.880 --> 0:10:38.800 know that that regulation would violate the First Amendment. If 0:10:38.920 --> 0:10:42.120 the proposal and doesn't sound at all like what the 0:10:42.240 --> 0:10:45.000 FT chair is talking about. But if the proposal is, 0:10:45.440 --> 0:10:51.040 let's require platforms not to discriminate based on viewpoint, Let's 0:10:51.120 --> 0:10:54.840 require them to host speech without regard to viewpoint, kind 0:10:54.880 --> 0:10:59.960 of like a phone company is required to basically hope 0:11:00.040 --> 0:11:04.199 stall paying customers and can't shut down your phone line 0:11:04.240 --> 0:11:07.000 because it doesn't like the viewpoints you're expressing using it. Well, 0:11:07.040 --> 0:11:09.880 that's a different story. I'm not sure that would be unconstitutional, 0:11:10.160 --> 0:11:12.160 although one can argue whether it is or isn't it, 0:11:12.200 --> 0:11:14.720 whether it's a good idea or not. Or Some people 0:11:14.760 --> 0:11:18.280 are saying the regulations should be that platforms should have 0:11:18.320 --> 0:11:22.120 the power to decide whether to block certain things, and 0:11:22.240 --> 0:11:24.400 some will say will block a lot of things, Some 0:11:24.520 --> 0:11:27.960 like maybe Elon Musk's Twitter, will say will block very little. 0:11:28.200 --> 0:11:30.400 But what they should do is they should disclose it. 0:11:30.880 --> 0:11:34.280 They should disclose for the public all their editing decisions 0:11:34.320 --> 0:11:36.600 you know, that might be constitutional, might even be a 0:11:36.600 --> 0:11:39.480 good idea, although there are possible interpretation problems as well. 0:11:39.600 --> 0:11:42.480 So the fact is that when it comes to speech, 0:11:42.600 --> 0:11:45.600 there are some kinds of permissible regulations. We haven't even 0:11:45.600 --> 0:11:48.040 touched on, things like regulations with regard to liabel or 0:11:48.200 --> 0:11:51.120 regulations with regard to true threat of violence and the like. 0:11:51.360 --> 0:11:53.840 There lots of regulations that would be impermissible, so it's 0:11:53.840 --> 0:11:57.200 hard to talk about whether there should be regulation in 0:11:57.240 --> 0:12:00.840 the abstract. You need to know what exactly is. The 0:12:00.880 --> 0:12:06.240 biggest change that's expected is re platforming of accounts that 0:12:06.320 --> 0:12:11.079 Twitter banned after they were used to harass, or incite 0:12:11.160 --> 0:12:15.000 violence or spread misinformation. And he also said that he 0:12:15.040 --> 0:12:19.120 would be cautious with permanent bands and that time outs 0:12:19.120 --> 0:12:22.319 would be better. I just want your take on that. Well, again, 0:12:22.360 --> 0:12:25.839 it all depends on exactly what we're talking about. So, 0:12:25.880 --> 0:12:28.440 for example, you said it accounts that would harass, that 0:12:28.440 --> 0:12:32.520 that incite violence, or that spread misinformation. So those are 0:12:32.640 --> 0:12:36.200 very different things harass. I'm actually writing an article about this. 0:12:36.360 --> 0:12:39.760 It's a term that doesn't have a really clear legal definition, 0:12:40.240 --> 0:12:43.200 or rather it has lots of different definitions in different contexts. 0:12:43.360 --> 0:12:48.040 Under some state laws, harassment means, among those things, physical misconduct, 0:12:48.080 --> 0:12:52.400 but also threats of violence. And you know, threats of 0:12:52.480 --> 0:12:57.320 violence are constitutionally unprotected. Platforms don't have to take them down, 0:12:57.440 --> 0:12:59.520 but I think we can plausibly say that if something 0:12:59.600 --> 0:13:03.360 actually threatens violence, it's a crime, and the platforms ought 0:13:03.400 --> 0:13:05.480 to take it down. On the other hand, sometimes you 0:13:05.480 --> 0:13:08.839 will use harass to mean saying really mean things about 0:13:08.920 --> 0:13:11.680 someone and doing so repeatedly in a way that makes 0:13:11.720 --> 0:13:14.760 this person feel kind of insulted and set upon. Well, 0:13:14.800 --> 0:13:18.000 all right, you could call that harass, but it's also 0:13:18.040 --> 0:13:20.720 you could call it criticism, you could call it condemnations. 0:13:20.760 --> 0:13:23.559 So I'd need to know a lot more if you're 0:13:23.600 --> 0:13:26.720 asking whether some particular account that was guilty of harassment 0:13:27.160 --> 0:13:29.080 ought to be thenned, I'd lead needs a lot know 0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:32.040 a lot more about what that harassment incite violence. Well, 0:13:32.400 --> 0:13:36.920 it means incitement in the First Amendment sense of speech 0:13:37.000 --> 0:13:41.520 that is intended to and likely to cause imminent illegal conduct. Well, again, 0:13:41.559 --> 0:13:45.000 that's constitutionally unprotective, and maybe Twitter would remove it once 0:13:45.000 --> 0:13:47.719 it concludes that it's constitutionally unprotected. On the other hand, 0:13:47.760 --> 0:13:51.400 often people use insight loosely, which basically just in the 0:13:51.480 --> 0:13:54.959 sense of tending to lead some people, almost always a 0:13:55.040 --> 0:13:57.760 tiny fraction of all readers, towards violence. And again you 0:13:57.840 --> 0:13:59.440 might ask, well, what do you do with your garden 0:13:59.480 --> 0:14:03.760 account to harshly condemns the police, calls them an occupying army, 0:14:04.040 --> 0:14:07.400 says no justice, no piece, praises rioters and looters and 0:14:07.440 --> 0:14:10.560 the like. Is that incitement of violence against the police 0:14:10.640 --> 0:14:13.719 or incitement of writing that I'm a looting Well, you know, 0:14:14.559 --> 0:14:17.640 h it could be called that in ordinary English. I'm 0:14:17.640 --> 0:14:19.600 not sure that that's an account that should be banned 0:14:19.640 --> 0:14:23.080 in those kinds of situations. And then you say misinformation. 0:14:23.200 --> 0:14:26.480 The problem is misinformation according to whom right, One of 0:14:26.480 --> 0:14:28.480 the problems is a lot of times people have a 0:14:28.520 --> 0:14:31.840 dispute about what is accurate information and what is misinformation. 0:14:32.360 --> 0:14:35.760 What are accurate allegations about counter Biden's laptop and which 0:14:35.760 --> 0:14:39.520 ones were not? What we're accurate allegations about whether President 0:14:39.560 --> 0:14:42.640 fromp colluded with the Russians in s and which we're not. 0:14:43.040 --> 0:14:45.840 So I'm not sure that a company such as Twitter 0:14:46.040 --> 0:14:48.760 should be making decisions of this account should be banned 0:14:49.120 --> 0:14:52.040 because it's misinformation, because it may just be that it's 0:14:52.080 --> 0:14:55.000 information that Twitter doesn't like or the Twitter's owners don't like. 0:14:55.240 --> 0:14:58.160 Then there's a separate question of once you conclude something 0:14:58.600 --> 0:15:01.560 ought to be locked in some measure, should it be 0:15:01.600 --> 0:15:04.200 a permanent block or should be a temporary block. That's 0:15:04.200 --> 0:15:06.760 this time out question. That's also a separate issue and 0:15:06.800 --> 0:15:08.920 may depend a lot on the on the nature of 0:15:08.920 --> 0:15:12.480 the speech that's involved. Must take in charge of Twitter 0:15:12.800 --> 0:15:18.320 and making changes, Will it change how we define free speech? Well, first, 0:15:18.400 --> 0:15:20.880 a lot depends on what changes he actually makes. We 0:15:20.960 --> 0:15:23.880 now are hearing the kind of changes he's interested in making. 0:15:23.920 --> 0:15:27.480 But of course, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. 0:15:27.680 --> 0:15:30.760 We'll see in some months or maybe even some years 0:15:30.800 --> 0:15:33.040 as to what Twitter actually ends up to it. Second, 0:15:33.120 --> 0:15:37.400 of course, on one hand, free speech is a philosophical concept. 0:15:37.480 --> 0:15:41.200 People have been discussing it for hundreds of years, of 0:15:41.760 --> 0:15:44.280 some measure thousands of years, but at least the current 0:15:44.320 --> 0:15:46.840 debate about it dates back to the sixteen hundreds or 0:15:46.880 --> 0:15:50.520 seventeen hundreds in England. Current American debate dates back to that. 0:15:51.040 --> 0:15:54.160 So as a result of the policy that Twitter implements 0:15:54.240 --> 0:15:57.520 or Facebook implements is not something that is a philosophical 0:15:57.600 --> 0:16:01.360 matter should affect our definitions of speech. But as a 0:16:01.400 --> 0:16:03.920 practical matter, I do think that a lot of times 0:16:04.000 --> 0:16:07.000 people kind of take their cues about the meaning of 0:16:07.000 --> 0:16:11.160 a concept based on what is actually allowed. So if 0:16:11.280 --> 0:16:15.560 indeed platforms routinely banned certain kinds of speech on the 0:16:15.560 --> 0:16:18.600 grounds that, well, that's not free speech, it's hate speech, 0:16:18.600 --> 0:16:21.240 which is a legal matter, that's a non sequitor because 0:16:21.440 --> 0:16:23.880 so called hate speech is generally protected free speech. But 0:16:23.960 --> 0:16:27.440 imagine enough platforms say that, Imagine enough platforms say well, 0:16:27.480 --> 0:16:31.720 that's not free speech, it's misinformation. Then maybe indeed, over time, 0:16:31.760 --> 0:16:33.720 people will get used to it, and people will come 0:16:33.720 --> 0:16:36.160 to assume that will of course it's not free speech 0:16:36.200 --> 0:16:39.480 because we see that it's already prohibited by these influential entities. 0:16:39.520 --> 0:16:44.200 So it's possible. It's also possible that maybe platforms decisions 0:16:44.280 --> 0:16:46.440 try to sense of things will backfire and we will 0:16:46.520 --> 0:16:49.200 remind people that this is free speeches, just free speech, 0:16:49.240 --> 0:16:52.760 that platforms are wrongly forbidding. So it's really hard to 0:16:52.800 --> 0:16:57.120 tell how public attitudes towards these kinds of concepts will 0:16:57.160 --> 0:17:01.120 evolve as a result of private corporations decisions. Thanks Eugene, 0:17:01.440 --> 0:17:06.800 that's Professor Eugene Ballack of US law school. Former President 0:17:06.840 --> 0:17:09.919 Donald Trump is appealing in New York Judes ruling holding 0:17:09.960 --> 0:17:13.240 him in contempt of court and imposing a ten thousand 0:17:13.320 --> 0:17:16.320 dollar fine each day for failing to comply with this 0:17:16.440 --> 0:17:20.720 subpoena in the Attorney General Civil fraud investigation. In more 0:17:20.760 --> 0:17:24.720 than six million pages of corporate records handed over, only 0:17:24.800 --> 0:17:29.320 ten documents were Trump's Joining me is Eric Larson Bloomberg. 0:17:29.680 --> 0:17:33.639 Joining me is Eric Larson Bloomberg legal reporter, for failing 0:17:33.640 --> 0:17:37.439 to comply with this subpoena. So, for those who may 0:17:37.440 --> 0:17:40.440 have been living under a rock, tell us about what 0:17:40.520 --> 0:17:44.880 the a G Is investigating. Sure, this is an investigation 0:17:44.880 --> 0:17:49.040 that started in two thousand nineteen looking into the Trump organization, 0:17:49.200 --> 0:17:52.639 the use of asset valuations over the years for some 0:17:52.720 --> 0:17:56.200 of its biggest assets, and whether or not those valuations 0:17:56.200 --> 0:17:59.920 were manipulated in any way to give Trump better terms 0:18:00.000 --> 0:18:02.440 on things like bank loans or insurance or even task 0:18:02.600 --> 0:18:06.600 refunds and things like that. And this investigation started after 0:18:06.640 --> 0:18:11.600 Trump's longtime lawyer Michael Cohen testified for Congress and alleged 0:18:11.640 --> 0:18:14.080 all kinds of wrongdoing at the Trump Boards. So the 0:18:14.119 --> 0:18:17.520 Attorney General, Leticia James opened the investigation at that time 0:18:17.760 --> 0:18:20.680 issued a bunch of subpoenas, I mean, ultimately had to 0:18:20.720 --> 0:18:24.080 go to court to enforce those subpoenas because the Trump 0:18:24.160 --> 0:18:27.680 organization disagreed with their validity. So that's how this court 0:18:27.760 --> 0:18:31.440 case got started, and that's that investigation is obviously ongoing. 0:18:31.760 --> 0:18:35.640 Have Trump and the Trump Organization turned over documents? Well, yeah, 0:18:35.640 --> 0:18:38.400 there's are two very different questions, because the Trump organization 0:18:38.760 --> 0:18:41.880 ultimately was ordered to comply with the subpoena and has 0:18:41.920 --> 0:18:45.199 been doing so. Obviously there's still this agreement about that, 0:18:45.320 --> 0:18:48.640 but they have turned over more than six million pages 0:18:48.640 --> 0:18:52.480 of documents. Dozens of employees and former employees, you know, 0:18:52.520 --> 0:18:56.359 have searched their records and been deposed under oaths and 0:18:56.440 --> 0:18:59.199 things like that. But as for Trump, you know, the 0:18:59.440 --> 0:19:04.160 earlier subpoenas to the Trump Organization and everyone else had 0:19:04.400 --> 0:19:08.359 turned over some documents that were Trumps essentially, but but 0:19:08.440 --> 0:19:11.640 only ten. So at the six million pages, only ten 0:19:11.680 --> 0:19:14.480 documents were actually from Trump himself, who is you know, 0:19:14.640 --> 0:19:18.439 the leader of the company. So in December um the 0:19:18.720 --> 0:19:22.880 Attorney General issued a subpoena to Trump himself for records 0:19:22.920 --> 0:19:27.000 and information in his possession, as well as his testimony. 0:19:27.440 --> 0:19:30.000 You may recall that that Trump and also his son 0:19:30.119 --> 0:19:34.280 Don Jr. And Ivanka Trump, who has also received subpoenas, 0:19:34.280 --> 0:19:38.639 they all challenged the subpoena for their testimony. They lost 0:19:38.680 --> 0:19:42.080 on that they were ordered to be deposed. They've appealed 0:19:42.400 --> 0:19:46.240 and that is happening separately. But what they didn't challenge 0:19:46.520 --> 0:19:50.960 was the subpoena for Trump's records. So it was understood 0:19:51.000 --> 0:19:54.280 and expected that the former president would be handing over 0:19:54.640 --> 0:19:58.199 some records of his own in his possession related to 0:19:58.240 --> 0:20:02.800 these various asset valuations by March thirty one. That was 0:20:02.840 --> 0:20:06.920 the deadline that was agreed by the Attorney General and Trump, 0:20:07.000 --> 0:20:10.159 and it was ordered by the court. So March thirty 0:20:10.200 --> 0:20:13.520 one came, and instead of complying in full as he 0:20:13.640 --> 0:20:18.679 was ordered to do, he instead filed a sixteen page 0:20:18.720 --> 0:20:21.800 what the judge described as a boiler plate objections to 0:20:21.880 --> 0:20:24.840 the subpoena for records that he had already agreed to 0:20:24.880 --> 0:20:28.919 comply with um and an affirmation by his lawyer stating 0:20:28.960 --> 0:20:31.679 that there were no records. They've looked and there were not. 0:20:32.320 --> 0:20:34.639 So that's where we ended up with this content of 0:20:34.760 --> 0:20:39.200 court decision. A lawyer for the A G Flag concerns 0:20:39.200 --> 0:20:42.119 about hard copy records that should be searched in file 0:20:42.240 --> 0:20:45.960 cabinets on two floors of Trump Tower, a storage closet 0:20:46.000 --> 0:20:49.960 near Trump's office, and an off site location that seems 0:20:50.040 --> 0:20:54.520 awfully specific. How did they even know about those locations 0:20:54.520 --> 0:20:57.720 and that there might be documents there. Well, they would 0:20:57.720 --> 0:21:01.679 have learned about this from their investigations so far. You know, 0:21:01.720 --> 0:21:04.720 they've gotten uh from all of their interviews with other 0:21:04.760 --> 0:21:07.159 employees and just from looking at the documents that have 0:21:07.200 --> 0:21:09.080 been turned over. I'm sure they have a very good 0:21:09.119 --> 0:21:13.199 idea of how the records are stored. Um, there's a 0:21:13.200 --> 0:21:15.840 lot of hard copy records that go into a series 0:21:15.920 --> 0:21:18.560 of filing cabinets, I think they said on the twenty 0:21:18.640 --> 0:21:21.720 five and twenty six floors of Trump Tower. There's also 0:21:21.800 --> 0:21:25.480 a storage closet outside of Trump's office where some records 0:21:25.480 --> 0:21:27.760 are stored, and then of course an off site location, 0:21:27.800 --> 0:21:31.840 which is not unusual. But basically, what the judge determined 0:21:32.040 --> 0:21:34.960 was that if Trump is going to stay and there 0:21:35.000 --> 0:21:37.439 are no records, that it needs to be done with 0:21:37.480 --> 0:21:40.680 more than just saying that, you know that that was clearly, 0:21:41.080 --> 0:21:44.440 in the judges view, did not comply with his order 0:21:45.000 --> 0:21:47.840 to follow up with the subpoena, so he did find 0:21:47.880 --> 0:21:50.119 him in contempt. Of course, said that it just was 0:21:50.160 --> 0:21:53.399 not nearly enough just to raise these objections at this point, 0:21:53.440 --> 0:21:55.720 that it was too late. He'd already agreed to comply 0:21:55.760 --> 0:21:58.560 about his subpoena um and then instead of doing so, 0:21:59.160 --> 0:22:02.320 filed some objects that should have been filed earlier, and 0:22:02.359 --> 0:22:04.680 then just made up sort of a blanket statement by 0:22:04.680 --> 0:22:07.879 his lawyer that there were no records around. So the 0:22:08.000 --> 0:22:10.600 judge that you need to be much more specific. You 0:22:10.640 --> 0:22:14.720 need to tell me exactly where you searched, exactly what 0:22:14.760 --> 0:22:18.240 you searched, exactly when you searched it, and who searched it, 0:22:18.680 --> 0:22:21.160 and then maybe you'll be in compliance with the court 0:22:21.280 --> 0:22:23.639 order and you'll no longer be in contempt. But until 0:22:23.680 --> 0:22:26.200 then he's in content of court and is approving a 0:22:26.320 --> 0:22:30.160 ten tho dollar a day fine. So his lawyer said, 0:22:30.320 --> 0:22:33.840 President Trump does not email, he does not chext message, 0:22:33.840 --> 0:22:37.280 and he has no work computer at home or anywhere else. 0:22:38.080 --> 0:22:42.360 So is she saying these documents just don't exist? Right? 0:22:42.640 --> 0:22:46.720 His lawyer, Elena Habba at the hearing on Monday where 0:22:46.760 --> 0:22:49.600 Trump was found in contempt, but she guaranteed to the 0:22:49.680 --> 0:22:52.720 judge verbally that she had personally looked in all of 0:22:52.720 --> 0:22:55.800 these places and that she had actually flown down to 0:22:55.880 --> 0:22:59.879 Florida and met with Trump at Mara Lago to interview 0:23:00.000 --> 0:23:02.840 her client about these records to determine if there were 0:23:02.880 --> 0:23:06.439 any responsive records. And she guaranteed to the court that 0:23:06.520 --> 0:23:09.240 she had done all of these searches personally and that 0:23:09.400 --> 0:23:12.240 no responsive records were found. And the Trump said there 0:23:12.240 --> 0:23:14.919